[Start of Lecture]

[Start of Lecture]

Thank you.

Thank you.

Well, I as usual don't have a single thing to talk to you about. But as we go along, why, we may dream up something. Something might occur.

Well, I'd like to talk to you now about something that is a little more pleasant than aberration. But I don't know what it is.

Now, I've given you several talks on the subject of organization here in the last few weeks, and it is highly possible that these talks might have found some small interest, since a Scientologist should be totally capable of taking over an organization and straightening it out for people who can't. After all, what is an organization but third-dynamic sanity? That's all it is.

It's very difficult to generalize, you know, on the subject of aberration, because preclears, you know, are really all different. Now, I've told you they were all the same this evening. I told you they were all the same. Now, I just might as well tell you they're all different.

If you were to go up to General Electric right now you'd find a madhouse. And I don't advise you to do it. Go over to Saint Elizabeth's for a conducted tour instead.

Every preclear is different than every other preclear. They aren't the same at all. They don't respond the same way. Why? Because they'd have different tolerances for randomity.

Of course, there is this difference between Saint Elizabeth's and General Electric: At General Electric they're below dramatizing. They just sit there and shuffle the pieces of paper. Then they shuffle them back and pass them on to somebody else.

Now, this is an old word, an old word. There's plus and minus randomity. Fascinating stuff, this randomity. Because out of randomity you get a game. And what makes all the preclears different? Well, it's a very interesting thing: they're all playing a slightly different game with this plus or minus randomity.

Any one of these big corporations is subject to an enormous amount of confusion.

Now, "randomity" is a formidable word. When it first came out they called it "rondamity." There's "randomity" and "automaticity." These are two very formidable words. But yet they're very, very easy to understand.

Now, what is a person subject to when he is mad as a hatter? Simply confusion, nothing else. That's all.

One of those words rondamity, excuse me, randomity, is a simple statement of too much or too little confusion – if you just look at it that way. Random: It means a non-set pattern. How random is it? Well, it could be not random enough, or it could be too random. Well, who's to judge that? The preclear. And that's what makes them all different.

One of the most fantastic processes you're ever going to run. on anybody is simply, "Mock up a confusion." That's all. "See that chair? What kind of a confusion could you make with it?" You run that in a complicated enough version so as to suit the appetite of your preclear for complication and you're liable to have some interesting and wonderful things happen.

"What game are they playing?" is modified by "What speed?" Now, this fellow goes to this small, sleepy town and there's nothing at all happening at all in the town. And there's a dog asleep in front of the general store, and there's one horse, walks down the street of the town at a slow pace. And this fellow, if he's from New York, says, "Oh, my God. How can anybody stand this sa-a-oo- oo! It's going to drive me mad listening to all this silence all night." See?

In the first place, every stable datum, every fixed stable datum which comes into being as an aberrated datum to your preclear, is an island of refuge in an endless, pounding sea of confusion. And they're on the island because the sea was tumultuous. And so you find somebody saying, "Well. Where do horses sleep? They sleep in beds."

Another fellow happens to be from a farm over at Hoot-n-holler. And he comes in and he sees that dog asleep there, and he sees that one horse start walking down the street. He has a nervous breakdown. Goes to see a psychiatrist. Too much motion for him.

And you say, "Oh, come now, do they really sleep in beds?"

Now, this would merely be a difference of what they thought motion should consist of. So you'd have the identical situation being plus to the fellow from Hoot-n-holler and minus to the fellow from New York. So we got plus and minus randomity – all in the same situation.

"Yes, of course they do." He believes this. He believes this utterly.

So it comes down to consideration. What is the person's consideration of what is too fast? What is the person's consideration of what is too slow? When you establish these two things, you then have established his optimum randomity, but that is only established for him.

How did he come into possession of this datum? Oh, very simple. The situation was so confused that only by assuming this datum could he himself feel even vaguely safe.

Now, it can vaguely be established for a class of people. A motorcycle club, for instance, has an interesting reaction to spills. They're all tearing down the highway, one after the other, and they're somewhat mixed up: they're only hitting eighty, and some guy goes off the curve at eighty miles an hour. "Imagine it!" And he breaks his leg, and they drag him out and untangle him from the machine, and so forth, and set his leg and shove him in to a doctor. And he's out next Saturday with a stader splint, riding his motorcycle, see? Hardly anybody yiekle- yackled about this at all, see? Nothing. Nothing to it.

I really shouldn't tell you about this particular instance, because it happened. His wife was from Warrenton, Virginia, and they have horses down there, you know. And his wife was mad about horses, you know, and never paid any attention whatsoever to her husband and did pay some attention, though, to the chauffeur. He liked horses too, he said.

Well, somebody driving a Cadillac – driving it mainly to hold up traffic, is why I think most of these people drive Cadillacs. You always find these big vehicles capable of doing Lord-knows-what miles per hour, always doing some other miles per hour. And you get this Cadillac, and it's driving down the street, and the fellow driving it stops just a little bit rapidly. He stamps on its power brake, you see. He almost rushes the light. And the lady in the back seat of the Cadillac goes forward just a slight little bit and her handbag drops on her toe. See? Cadillac stops. Chauffeur gets fired. Goes to see the doctor to have X-rays taken. Is in the hospital for a week, you know. Goes to see a psychiatrist to see if it had deranged her mentally. Get the idea?

I shouldn't tell you this story, really, because this tape will go through the U.S. mails, right? It's not you that I worry about. It's the postmaster general. He can't stand these things, you know. I mean – sensitive, sensitive. He has a stable data that "Purity is the only way to get a letter through." I don't know what it has to do with, but it's set. Even religious magazines like Esquire have been barred the use of the mails. Well, that's a religion. It's a religion known as man. Many people subscribe to it.

Totally different ideas obtained. Now, you consider that ridiculous. Actually I saw that happen.

Anyway, as you look this over, this picture of "horses sleep in beds..." I've never really told you the whole story about this before. I've mentioned the incident, but I haven't told you the real lowdown. We'll take a chance on the postmaster general.

So you want to watch these Cadillacs, by the way. You want to watch them. They're the dangerous cars on the road. Driving at fifteen miles an hour or twenty-five miles an hour, when everybody else is doing fifty, you know? They get in your road, and it's an obstacle. And obstacles, when run into, are damaging to wheel alignments and things.

Anyway, he walked in and the bed was all rumpled up. Well, that was the end of his life, wasn't it? He'd have to shoot the chauffeur, divorce the wife, you see? One of these situations, so forth. But he looked in the bottom of the bed and he found a horseshoe. Obviously, it explained the whole situation.

Anyway, here is a different viewpoint. So we can assign just this nebulousness to class: there is a slight tendency in these classes to follow a certain pattern. Just as there was one person in the motorcycle club who thought that must have hurt Joe a little bit when he went off the curve, so there might be somebody riding Cadillacs who would think that it was just a little extraordinary for her to have gone to a hospital for a week because her handbag dropped on her toe. You get the idea? There would be variations within the class, even. And because there are these variations we can make this remark: "All preclears are different."

And years afterwards when she had finally done everyone in, he went to work for a livery stable and one of the first things he ordered was, of course, a number of four-posters for the horses.

What is their optimum randomity? When we say "optimum randomity," we're saying "game" in a complicated fashion. But game has more in it than motion. A game has purpose and a game has the idea of freedom and barriers. But the speed of the game would be what we consider random. A game must be to some degree random – in other words, slightly unpredictable.

From what confusion did he retreat? See? The confusion of marital infidelity, the confusion of all the surroundings being upheaved and unsettled and so forth. So he grabs this datum. It explains everything. He doesn't have to take any action. And he himself, however, has to sell himself his own total conviction on the subject.

What is a random particle? It is a particle that we cannot quite determine the future course of. That would be a random particle.

Now, one day – I hate to use these dirty words, but as long as we've ruined this tape anyway, let's just go whole-hog – a psycho-anal-ist gets hold of him and says, "Now, what is this I hear about you insisting that all horses have innerspring mattresses, and turning people in to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals if they don't give their horses innerspring mattresses and Simmons beds?"

All right. If everybody knew that the navy was always going to beat the army in football; and it was always going to be a score of fourteen to nothing; and the plays were all going to be run off in a one, two, three, four; and in the second quarter, first play they're going to use a T formation, you know – nobody would go to those football games. They'd go down here to a high school in northern Virginia and watch some real football. Because there you can't even predict that they're going to play football.

He says, "Well," he says, "doesn't everybody think this?"

Now, as we look over the entirety of games, we ourselves find it rather difficult sometimes to believe that somebody who is in a remarkable state of disrepair – psychosomatically – is actually playing a game. That is his level of game, and the motion which he tolerates to a marked degree matches his level of game.

And the psychoanalyst says, "Well, no, as a matter of fact, nobody thinks that but you."

He has a psychosomatic ill: Every time he smells wet paint he becomes violently sick at his stomach. You know? You say, "Well, it's not reasonable." No, it's not reasonable! It's psychosomatic. But it is part of some sort of a game he is playing. This is his defenses to some degree. This is the way he becomes a formidable object.

And fellow says, "But, please, don't horses occasionally sleep in some bed somewhere?"

If you were to pass a law saying that all people who were suffering from an illness known as "woofosis," whereas they walked down the street and barked every few paces like a dog (woofosis, very deadly disease), and all those people were no longer subject to taxation or some such thing, you in a very short space of time, I'm sure, would see people walking down the street a few paces and barking, and walking down the street a few paces and barking. They would go on doing this. You got the idea?

Psychoanalyst, being a good therapist, says, "Never! Under no circumstances. You mustn't get these ideas, because everybody will think you are peculiar. And in view of the fact that psychoanalism is a good subject and it's nice and it's kind to people, and so forth, I won't be able to give you an electric shock; but my psychiatric friend across the hall, he's got a machine all ready for you. Now, you do still believe that horses sleep in beds?"

Why? They have a game mock-up. They're in a game condition. That is to say, they can almost play this game. But they have a mock- up which doesn't play a game they can't tolerate. See, the mock- up won't be able to play that game, but the people in that game won't play against them either. See? "Taxation will be canceled if..."

And this fellow says, "Heh-heh, no. No, horses don't sleep in beds."

Well, there are lots of citizens around who'll still play this game called taxation. You know, government issues the money and takes it back and issues it and takes it back and so forth. Called the ebb and flow of nonsense.

Now what happens to him? Instantly all the confusion which this datum held in abeyance collapsed on the guy. Got it? Boom! And now he's very confused. Although this is twenty years later, he has the entire sensation that he has just been jilted, messed up, betrayed. Get the idea? But there isn't anybody in his vicinity to betray him. Not twenty years later. So what's the final analysis? Now he is crazy. He has no stable datum to support all that confusion.

Anyway, this thing called taxation is a game and lots of people play it. I know there are millionaires around. They have whole teams, rooms full of accountants. You have to get a Mount Palomar scope to look down the lengths of the desks. And what are all these guys for? Well, their aggregate payroll is, let us say, $8,622 a week. To keep from doing what? From paying $1,260 worth of taxes. See? It's just a game. Just a game. Nothing more and nothing less than a game. It isn't even important to the fellow whether he pays these taxes or doesn't pay these taxes, but he spends all of his time sitting around figuring, figuring, figuring, trying to get some way whereby he can beat somebody out of some taxes, see. He's just mad.

Now, if you wanted to play it in the quiet way as a Scientologist, all you'd do is have to give him some stable data. You'd just say to him, "When did you have this trouble?"

Another fellow takes an entirely different approach. He just reaches down and pulls a hold of the corner of the rug called "government" and gives it a jerk. Somebody else plays that game in a different fashion. But it's a game. Don't think that it isn't a game.

And "Well," he said, "it all happened when I went to see this psycho-anal-ist. All happened then."

Of course, it's not a game to an Internal Revenue employee. So we don't know who it's a game to on that side.

Of course, you know it didn't happen then. Something got unsettled then, but what happened, happened earlier. So you would suppose then that your best gambit in this particular case would be to simply invalidate the invalidator. You see? If you wanted an immediate result, the best thing to do is to prove to him statistically that all psycho-anal-ists are psycho-anal-ists, and nothing worse could happen to anybody. You see?

Way back down the line, sometime in the past, somebody didn't like millionaires and he passed a law. And we're probably still playing the game with that person. See? Karl Marx – somebody like that. We're still playing the game with him even though we apparently have a bunch more players out here. Well, those fellows aren't players, they're pieces. Get the idea? On a chessboard you have pieces, not players.

And the fellow says "You know, he did have a goofy look in his eye."

Now, in life, an individual is apt to be used as a piece one way or the other and be shoved around without any slightest determinism on his own part. And sometimes he makes a game out of thinking he is a piece. He's being shoved around against his own desire.

"Oh, yes," you'd say. "Yes, yes, absolutely. It shows you right here according to the British Colonial Shipping Board – British Colonial Shipping Board has it here as an entire proof of the subject, but it shows that every 2.3 people who go to see a psycho-anal-ist become one."

Funny part of it is, if a fellow ever suspects he's a piece, he isn't one. That's the cute one. If he ever gets the idea, "You know, I'm just being shoved around here," he isn't a piece. Pieces don't think. They never find out. So although he may be involved in some game called "soldier" in which he is a piece that never suspects he's a piece even vaguely, the game he knows he's playing and the game he's being used in are usually two different things.

And the fellow says, "Do you suppose I became one?"

So we have a condition whereby this individual who is a soldier – obviously just a piece, in what game he doesn't know. Somebody says, "Attack the citizens of Clinton, Kentucky," you know? And he goes and attacks them. He doesn't know what game he's in. He didn't realize he was winning a presidential election reverse- wise or... He didn't know what he was doing.

"Well, I don't know. I don't know," you'd say. "That's up to you. But they're all crazy, because all they do is tell you you're wrong."

But his game would be, perhaps, in obfuscating the sergeant. You know? He's got some game going with the sergeant and he is really a player in this game, see, a terrific player in this game. The sergeant rolls them out in the morning, you know, and he's got it all fixed up so that somebody sings out, "yere" to his name, see.

"That's right," the guy says. "That's right."

Sergeant says, "Smith," and one of his buddies says, "Yo," you know. And the sergeant never looks up from the roll call, see. He's still in bed, see? He gets blackmail on his partners in the company – his other soldiers and so forth – to make them do this, you know. He wins at cards. He amasses large debts to himself and so forth, so that when his name appears up there for a digging detail, it's Jones that goes out, not Smith.

And now you run him a little bit more with some two-way comm, and he will confide to you very cautiously, "Is it possible for a horse to sleep in a bed?"

It isn't because he's lazy at all. He's playing a game with the sergeant. He knows he's playing it. With what glee he lies there in his bunk and listens to the calisthenics going on outside the tents, you see. He knows he's playing that game.

And you say, "Pff. Why not? Why not?" You'd say, "What did you say?"

Well, because this condition can exist, many of us become suspicious that we are in some sort of a game that we know not what of. We're being used in some fashion, and we start looking around to find some game we're being used as a piece in.

"Oh," he says, "horses – do they ever sleep in beds? You know." You can get the pleading in his voice as he says this, you know.

Well, the funny part of it is, there's a role lower than "piece." It's "broken piece." Nobody's using it. And many a time we begin to look around and worry about what game we might be being used as a piece in and we find out we're not being utilized. Well, because this would be too much of a blow to us, we normally can be expected to cook up something.

And you'd say, "Absolutely. I can prove to you statistically..." You've got the other side of the incident. You got it?

Now, an example of that is a fellow talks about the between-lives area. Now, he himself has no real concept of the between-lives area. But he says, "The last time they sent me down here..." see? He's heard of somebody running this engram or something like that. He's trying to get into a game condition even to the extent of being a piece, you see. He considers that a little more game. And he'll talk about this. As a matter of fact, there's a grave possibility that many are used in this category. There's a grave possibility that people around are shot from hither to yon for this purpose or that, in some game they know not what of at all. There's a definite possibility.

Now, here is a whole picture, if a humorous one, of the rest point and the confusion. Now, every strange idea that every person has is in itself a stable datum for a much wider area of confusion. If you destroy every stable datum a person has without doing anything at all to the confusion, you'll leave them very confused. Do you see that?

One of the oldest whole track gags was to take somebody, knock him out, and tell him he had to go over to some other place and do something or other that would louse up the enemy in some fashion. And the fellow does it, by the way. I mean, he'll go ahead and be a piece in a game to this degree.

If you had an idea of a river flowing along as usual within a quarter of an inch of the top of the levee, and the levee eighteen hundred feet above the level of the plain... I think that's supposed to be the optimum condition the Army Engineer Corps has for the Mississippi, isn't it? The levee is eighteen hundred feet above the plain and the river's within two inches of the top of the levee. That's for normal-waters condition. Of course, in floods that's something else.

Well, a few thousand years later he's not in any particular big game. He's completely lost from this old game and he runs short of games, so he goes around telling people that he has a mission. See, he dreamed it up, and the Archangel Mike or somebody is sitting two feet back of his right shoulder sending him telepathic or teletype messages, and he has a mission.

The way this happens, you know, is the river keeps coming along and depositing floods and spilling over and finding weak spots in the levee and pouring out into the plain, giving Eisenhower another excuse not to give any farm relief.

Well, you want to look at this with some askance, because the truth of the matter is that I happen to know Mike, and he's not careless with who he picks out. And he doesn't pick out guys that blab, you see? If anybody was executing a mission for the Archangel Mike, you can make a very sound investment in a bet that he wouldn't know anything about it at all. Otherwise he wouldn't be a piece.

What happens if you have a weak point?

Now, therefore, when people begin to suspect that they're being used in games of one character or another, the usual thing that one suspects in return is that they have lost their last game and they're dragging an old one into view.

Now, the whole levee, let us say, is built out of mud, and nothing but mud from one end to the other. And you see a trickle of water coming through this levee, and you take a rock and you shove it into this particular spot. Well, it's stopping a big confusion of river.

Funny thing how a thetan can actually play a game and not play a game at the same time, how he can play a game that he doesn't know anything about, how he can be multivalenced on this whole subject. It's quite amazing.

Now, we admit that it should have been mud all the way along the line and everybody should have been sane. But you did take a piece of rock.

But this comes about because every now and then there is only himself. Now, those things which are the least admired tend to persist. And being all by yourself is not much admired. So people eventually drift into an "only one" category, and they begin to believe they're all by themselves in some fashion. But they will dream up some multivalence situation whereby they are playing chess with themselves. And they go from the idea that they're the "only one" – in other words, they run out of games and opponents and roles to play – into playing a game with some mysterious opponent. And boy, this guy's really mysterious.

Now the U.S. Army Engineers Corps says, "Somebody has been throwing rocks at our levee. And there's a five thousand dollar fine for anybody to push any rocks at our levee. Remove it at once." Boom!

"Every time I go to bed at night something whispers in my ear." Get the idea? This is a mysterious opponent. "Something tells me that I had better not go down that road." Look! If it said it that well, you're the only one who articulates that expertly.

The trickle becomes a torrent. The torrent becomes a raging fire hose and suddenly there's no levee. You got the idea?

And you've got the phenomenon of the fellow playing chess with himself. He sits on one side of the chessboard and he says, "Now, let's see. I'm Joe now. Let's see. Uh... well, let's see. I move my knight to king's pawn five, there. I think that's very good." He says, "I'm not Joe now. Get over here." Bill now, you know. "Look at that dog! He moved his knight to... Well, I'll have to counter that one way or the other."

Now, the mud, you might say, in human relationships is the fellow didn't know there was that much confusion. He suddenly discovers that there is that much confusion by punching a little hole in his ordinary, routine ramparts of life. A little hole occurs. He plugs it up quick. See?

Eventually, if he keeps this up and keeps himself from knowing he's playing both sides of the board and swapping roles all the time, he merely winds up in the center of the board stalemated. But he's run almost completely out of game.

He learns how to do this, and seventy-six trillion years later he's still in the same universe. All around him is endless mud dikes. Not only do we find stones in his levees, but we find bricks, bits of mortar, chips of glass, old bodices, anything you could think of that was handy at the moment to shove into the hole when it happened. You got the idea?

But this is very hard for a thetan to do. He's always got a couple of games on tap. The game might be called "headache." The game might be called "distraught wife." The game might be called "caved-in worker." It's played in Russia a great deal: caved-in worker. Or "betrayed commissar."

Now, let's get another analogy on it so that it's a little different. Let us say that a whirlpool is annoying to somebody. Now, there's no particular reason why a whirlpool would be annoying to anybody, but some people find them annoying.

"Here I was, deeply sincere, tried to give my all for the people, and look at me now. Here I am sitting here in this office that's a hundred square yards on the side, and I have to keep all those guards with the machine guns outside the door because everybody is after me." As a matter of fact, in a well-run communism, nobody would find out he was commissar, see – I mean, really well run.

As a matter of fact, I had a friend once, E. A. Poe. He was a writer of minor stuff, so forth. Got two cents a word. That's all he got. That's not very high word rate. But this fellow Poe – well, he was a good pulp writer in his day, you know. This fellow Poe wrote something about descent into a maelstrom, and it sold extremely well. People were very happy with this. They bought the magazines even though it didn't make him any more money and it made the publisher a fortune. Descent into a maelstrom. And an awful lot of people then must have considered this very forbidding to have bought so much of it.

His game condition develops from the conditions he finds himself in. But all of these things are established, in the main, with what he himself has come to consider as too much or too little motion. Got that?

You get the argument. People only buy what is annoying to them; they read it to get rid of it. Probably the whole philosophy back of reading.

I should have suspected something about myself one time. I was on an expedition up in Alaska. And I was lying in my bunk, and everything was going along very smoothly, and we were homeward bound and everything had been done. The ship wasn't leaking a drop. The stores were all dry. I mean, everything was going along. The people on deck were totally competent. There was exactly nothing to do, and I realized there was nothing to do. And I had this stray thought. I said, "You know, I'm practically out of a job. No emergencies at all. There's nothing going on. You know, that's an awful situation to be in," I said to myself. And forgot all about it quite promptly, walked up to the chart table, looked up the tables for tides going through inlets and narrows, read the Canadian tide table – which some days before I had noted was an hour and a half different than the American tide table for the same waters – established the route through Dodd Narrows at full flood spring tide with a survey vessel.

Anyway, here's this whirlpool, you might say. And a fellow one day finds out that if he says "Abracadabra boo" at it, all of a sudden there's no more motion in the whirlpool. It suddenly becomes very calm. And he says, "What do you know about that? What magic is contained in this 'Abracadabra boo'? Hm!" So he goes around and he finds another whirlpool and he says, "Abracadabra boo." It stops, too.

Now, that's a fantastic thing for a guy to do to himself, because it meant that all of a sudden the ship was in a millrace. And we got through it all right – got out the other side. I didn't think we could make it, but I happened to remember that... Get the idea? I mean...

Well now, he's doing this because he didn't like whirlpools. Actual fact of it is, he mocked up the whirlpool this way, see. And then he said, back here someplace, "Abracadabra boo equals still whirlpool," see. So he says, "Abracadabra boo"; whirlpool becomes still.

One sailor we had that was terribly brave, terribly brave, had the helm just come loose and just start to spin idly in his hands, because both tiller lines had become unmoored from the rudder. And there was an auxiliary bar back there and a couple of us jumped back and put the bar in place and steered her on through. But that randomity wasn't necessary either.

That's very interesting, intrigues him mightily, keeps him amused for half a million years. Great magician. Great magician. He can go all around and still whirlpools and raging torrents and back up the tides and all sorts of things. Probably, he gets overly proud as a matter of fact and gets a big turret, drags young girls off to it. These magicians are – I mean, it's a sad career. None of you, of course, have ever indulged in this particular sport.

I thought about it afterwards very carefully. Thought over the whole thing and tried not to remember that about eight or nine days before I had noticed that the tiller lines were almost through. Fantastic. But you sometimes catch yourself playing a game. Beware of sliding into a condition whereby you are going to get some rest or relax, or you're going to do something else now that's quieter or better.

But one day he meets a psychoanalyst, see? And uh – uh pardon me, a psycho-magicless – and this fellow says to him, "Under no circumstances should you permit yourself to believe that 'Abracadabra boo' is an adequate and sufficient charm to still whirlpools. Actually, it takes some bath powder. In fact, here's a little box of it here."

Medical doctor plays on this all the time. Matter of fact if he didn't, he probably wouldn't ever have anybody in the hospital. He says, "Now," he says, "Uh... Mr. Smith, uh... Mr. Smith, uh... you're in very bad shape. Your heart, you know. So you've got take it easy. You've got to be quiet. You gotta take it easy here one way or the other. And uh... you mustn't overexert yourself. And don't worry. Above all, don't worry. Yes..."

The fellow says, "Will that do it?"

Of course, Mr. Smith's wife hears this and makes sure that this is carried out. And then Smith all of a sudden is back in there in a bankruptcy or something of this sort. Or incipient bankruptcy, working twenty-four hours a day in order to keep things... How the devil did a bankruptcy happen?

"Oh, yes, yes, nothing to it." See?

Well don't look at that too carefully. The guy was run down, you see, into minus randomity – not enough motion. So he omitted a couple of very obvious, logical steps somewhere along the line or antagonized the very people that he should have stayed friends with, and the next thing you know he's got a plus randomity on his hands. He's trying to adjust that minus randomity. Got it?

So he says, "Well, all right, I'll try it."

Every preclear, then, is as different as he runs at different speeds. He is as different as he will not tolerate no-motion and not tolerate excess motion. See, his intolerances determine his optimum speed.

Not only goes on whirling, froths up the place and drowns him.

Now, he likes a certain amount of action or motion, and he will work things until he gets somewhere in its vicinity. And he is only really unhappy – regardless of the expression he wears on his face – he is only really unhappy when he is missing it too widely.

In his next life – in his next life, he sees a whirlpool and he says, "I know how to do something with these, but I'm not quite sure what it is. But I'm sure that if I said something, and didn't put anything in it that it would be all right."

How fast should he drive? How fast should he walk? You got the idea? How fast should he eat? How slowly should he read?

So, after a while he says – he finds a still pond and he says, "You know that's an awful confusion. I'll try out this magic." So he says, "Spooie." It's still. (Still pond in the first place, you see.) He says, "It worked!"

I saw a fellow almost go to pieces one time on these read-it- faster classes. You know, every once in a while the whole country goes into a spree that it should be able to read faster. I don't know why this is. They'll just eat up the existing reading matter. A book costs three dollars. All right. Now, it takes a fellow twenty hours to read the book. Well, you divide twenty into three hundred, and you get the price per hour of the entertainment. Don't you see? Or the three into the twenty.

Now, what do you think he did? What do you think he did?

You get the idea? Now, if he reads faster, his entertainment costs him more money. So I don't see what it's all about, myself.

Well, in the first place he didn't dare unmock or still the thing, so he had to choose something that could be unmocked and stilled. And he was very careful after that to stay away from whirlpools, see, but he would tell people how he had stilled the waters in ponds that were already still. He would make some sort of dodge about this whole thing. He would try to hold on to the illusion that he still had some power, but he wouldn't quite make it.

But you see people around with "Reading Faster Self-Taught", you know. You'll see people avidly reading this in subways. "How To Read Faster". I don't know why they want to read faster. But they claim they can absorb more the faster they read. It doesn't work that way with me.

One day you come along and you're running some process on him, and all of a sudden the fellow says, "There's a word keeps occurring to me."

I was on a train once doing 105 on a test run and I didn't see any scenery at all. I knew I was going 105 though. So I guess that's what these people do. How to become aware of less, more quickly.

You say, "What?"

So anyhow, you'll see people speeding up on this. And in one such class where... Obviously these chaps were much too slow. They couldn't read all of the homework assigned, and so forth, and were given this class. And they were all supposed to speed up. And I saw this guy just start to crack up. He would read, you know, "I see the cat," or something simple like this, you know? And you could just see, just as he got about to "cat," why, his teeth...

Fellow says, "'Abracadabra boo.' I don't know where this came from, but it's a silly word. Silly word."

They were forcing him to pass his attention across more in less time, you see. But he had something on the order of "I see the cat," and he couldn't get "I see" through faster, and he'd just go all to pieces. And all of a sudden you'd see him start to jerk. Well, I know what was happening to him now. His optimum speed of reading – the safe speed of reading – was what he was reading at. He felt comfortable at this.

So you, obliging, use repeater technique on him. You say, "Abracadabra boo. Abracadabra boo. Abracadabra boo. Abracadabra boo. Abracadabra boo." And the preclear drowns in the chair. Well, anyway...

Well, there's typists – very often you think there are slow typists and fast typists. No, there are typists who are comfortable typing slowly and typists who are comfortable typing swiftly.

The most fantastic nonsense can stem out of this rest point and stable datum proposition. But the greatest nonsense is this: that people don't like confusions. And that's a great piece of nonsense. That's classic!

I knew, one time, a court reporter. And this person just couldn't type slowly. It was just a physical impossibility. Didn't feel like she was typing at all unless the typewriter was going brrrrrrum! jumping, you know, off of its stand, and brrrrr! and so on. She'd be sitting there quite happy, you know, chewing gum and everything was fine.

What's the matter with a confusion? Nothing wrong with a confusion. People don't like them. Makes a game.

Another person comes along and he's being pushed to type, one finger, you know. Peck. Peck. Why didn't he relax and write at the rate of one letter per minute – the right, optimum speed?

Well actually, it goes further than a confusion. Motion, just motion all by itself is the basis of it. A thetan basically fools around with motion because he doesn't like it very much.

Now, you could say, then, life would be livable at the speed a person had decided it was livable at. Got that? Life is livable at a safe speed, or life is livable at an optimum randomity, or life is livable so long as one's randomity did not become less than or greater than what he thought was comfortable.

You see, he can't duplicate motion. It's one of the things he can't duplicate best. He is actually himself, still. He is quiet. He is not in motion and when he sees things in motion, to make them duplicate him, he tries to make them quiet. After a while he gets things obsessed on the subject of quietness and here we go with the "Nonduplicative is bad. Things which will not duplicate me are evil." And when you get a lot of motion that actually attracts his attention very thoroughly, he decides that's very, very bad. So we get his not liking a confusion.

It isn't really safe. "Safe" isn't really good, because this assumes that everybody considers it necessary to protect himself – which, if you look at these drivers out here and so forth, you realize that it's an incorrect premise. Because those fellows aren't – they're not only not protecting themselves; they're not even protecting police. It's really bad, because I think the society should protect police. It shouldn't be open season all the time.

How does he stop confusions? With such nonsense as postulates, with getting onto one particle and saying, "Look. It's motionless." It's going around at a mad rate, see, but he's riding it. He says, "See? That's motionless. But look at this room spin." "Room is a terrible confusion," he says. "Demolish it."

Anyway, where we have, then, one slowed down or speeded up, we get maladjustment. What is maladjustment? It's being slowed down or speeded up.

All kinds of oddities could occur as you look at this, but the basic of it is, and the basic idiocy of it all is, a thetan doesn't like a confusion. He likes order. He doesn't like a confusion. And if he fights enough confusions, he himself becomes one, of course.

Now, here's an awful trick you can play on somebody. You want to throw somebody way down Tone Scale? You can throw him down in one of two ways.

Now, this whole problem goes as far as pain. What is pain? Pain is a very simple thing. Pain is too much confusion in too close a space. That is all pain is. Because you start running confusions on somebody and he starts hurting.

This individual walks at a certain rate of speed. Well, you walk along and carefully accustom your speed to the individual, see. Carefully walk just as fast as he's walking, you know. And because you're so well adjusted, you can take hold of his arm, and he feels very comfortable at this. And then slow down imperceptibly, see, pulling him back just a little bit. Meantime talk about something innocuous – politics or something else unimportant, you know – and you'll just observe the fellow... He never notices exactly what's happening if you're very adroit, but he goes right on down Tone Scale on the subject he's talking about.

Now, with a sadistic eye most auditors like to see a somatic turn on in the preclear. It tells them something is happening. What is this somatic that turns on? It is a confusion starting to unroll. Here we have the mechanics of the whole situation. There's no more, no less to it than a mechanical application of postulates.

Now, you can do the same thing the other way: You match your speed to his, and now you make him walk just a little bit faster – not much – than the speed which he set and which he evidently finds comfortable. And again talk about politics. And what do you know, he'll go right on down the Tone Scale again.

These things were basically postulates. Now, he didn't like disorderly postulates. He wanted his postulates in a line of logic. A thetan is very good at this. And his postulates should be in an orderly parade. They shouldn't be all mixed up. So when postulates get mixed up and the wrong writing on the wrong walls start to occur, he considers that a confusion. Well, that is the basic confusion.

But he will hit it in a different fashion. It'll be hectic. You know? He'll feel a little hectic about it, and then he'll slide on down. He'll get just as apathetic being speeded up as he was slowed down.

And now you might say this can be envisioned as a solid, and we do get such things as whirlpools, hailstorms – any rapid, disorderly motion. And a confusion is simply that: a disorderly motion.

In other words, what we're looking at here is a comfortable speed of walking. A comfortable speed of working. How much is too much chorus girl? See? How much is too much chorus girl? How much is too little chorus girl. Somebody goes and sees the Rockettes. And I don't know, they've gotten it up to a thousand girls, haven't they now, in regimental front? And he sees these Rockettes, and you can take him away, and you bring him away from the music hall and you say, "Well now, how'd you like the show?"

A thetan can tolerate, to a marked degree, an orderly motion. But everyone has a different idea of what an orderly motion is. And if we could agree thoroughly on what they were and what they weren't, why, we would have a much different-looking society.

He says, "Well, the movie was good."

For instance, what does a policeman consider an orderly motion? It would be a mile-long chain of cars, backed up behind a red light that he held the switch of and was never going to turn.

"Well, what did you think about the Rockettes?"

Now, that is a proper state of motion to a traffic cop usually. He himself has never learned the lesson that if you're going to handle traffic you have to get it off the streets. You have to get it rolling. You have to move it, and then it is not very confusing if it's moving. But if you just stop it and stop it and stop it, why, then it stays on the streets and is in one of the more interesting confusions.

"Oh, oh yeah," he says, "there was some dancing. You know, that movie was pretty good."

Now, usually you consider things confusing that are moving rapidly, but this is not anywhere near as trying as a confusion that is happening slowly. A slow-happening confusion is one of the more maddening things that can occur to anyone. Modern American traffic – it's a slow confusion.

Interesting. Fascinating. There were too many of them. They were moving too fast. They spread out in all directions, and so forth.

Here you have the idea of disorderly motion. You have the idea that a thetan doesn't like this. And now his remedy for it is usually to conceive a datum or counter-motion which explains or holds in check the existing motion. In other words, he doesn't like this disorderly motion so he explains it or arranges something mechanical to hold it in check. Now, having done this he then is able, you might say, to as-is the confusion.

You take the same guy down to a burley-burley show and there's just one chorus girl, you know. And he sits there and drools, drools, drools.

Well, he never as-ises the confusion. To get a stable datum for a confusion is to alter-is the confusion. And so they persist with what gorgeousness.

Well, that was evidently enough chorus girls, you see, in one direction. Well, how much is too little chorus girls? Well, you can't get him out of the theater. You've at once seen too many and too few – optimum in between – in just one striptease artist. You get the idea? See? Less than that – he doesn't like that, so he won't leave. More than that – well, he resents the "in between the acts." See? It would be right on the button.

Now, that is a bank. That is what you call an engram bank. It is "the periods when I stopped a confusion." You got it?

Well, most people have this, and that is what we know as taste.

There was a confusion going on, fast or slow, and there's some moment in it when it just stopped, just like that. Ha! That's a win.

Somebody walks into a room and... Park Avenue. Park Avenue: they have one color – one color carpet, one color on the bedspread, one color on the wall, one color in the vase, one color in the drapes, so forth, and... Gray, see. And it's perfect. Perfect, you see. And a decorator comes in and puts one willow sprig with a slightly different gray, you see. Person says, "Pretty wild. That's a pretty violent thing!" They say, "It's bad taste, garish!"

Oh yeah? It leaves the guy with the picture for the rest of his days.

Now we go down in the village, and a girl's got this half of the door painted chartreuse, the other half Chinese orange, see? But in the middle of the wall, from there to the floor, it's brilliant purple. You know? And we go on from there, see.

See, he says right at that last moment, just as the dentist is getting right down to the root of the thing... He manages, for instance, in his last glimmering gasp of consciousness to put his hand or elbow out so as to restrain the dentist for just a moment. You know? He held it in stop for just an instant. That's it.

She herself is wearing scarlet pajamas with a bright green turban, you know? Somebody walks in and says, "You must lead an awfully dull, quiet life." It would just be the amount of randomity in the color spectrum. This establishes taste.

You run this moment out and you get the moment when the tooth stopped the dentist for just an instant. And there he sits in the middle of a confusion. You got it? All other motion was intolerable, but there is a moment when it didn't hurt. In other words, there is a moment when it didn't confuse.

I don't know what good taste is in general, but I could say what good taste was for anybody who was tasting. That could be established.

Now, if you go on defining hurt as pain – as in Peanuts; he said the other day, "Well, pain hurts" – this is not an adequate definition for Scientology. You can't take it apart on this. But if you say that pain is one thing and a disorderly motion is another thing, you never can unsnarl a case.

So when we try to be too sweeping in our generalities concerning preclears – below the level of stable data, disorderly data, stable mass, disorderly particles, and this formula of randomity – when we drop down below that and get into other material, we can't really tell exactly how the hat fits until we have looked it over. Because this individual says he has a terrible intolerance for women.

The fellow holds on to these rest points, and every time you shatter them or move them the tiniest bit, this movement causes the next disorderly motion in sequence to take place, which of course turns on pain, and he grabs for a new rest point. So if you ran an engram directly, it would be: rest point, somatic, rest point, somatic, rest point, somatic. You get the idea? And if you didn't give him some new rest points somewhere along the line, his rest points would continue to be totally in the terms of bank.

You say, "Well, all right. What's so bad about women?" you would say – you would not say as an auditor, but if you said, "Now, what's so bad about women?"

Now, you could probably make a preclear feel lots better by having him stand up and stamp on the floor for a while. Stamp, stamp, stamp. He'd say, "What are you doing?"

He'd say, "Well, hair."

"Well, just go ahead and stamp," you'd say. "Stamp some more. Stamp more. Does that floor seem solid to you?" That's just thrown in, see.

"What about their hair?"

"Well," the fellow would say, "well, it shakes a little bit."

"Well, they wear it long."

"Well, come on outside here where we got this concrete walk. Now, stamp. All right, stamp some more. Stamp. Go on, stamp some more. Stamp! Oh, you can stamp harder than that."

Because you have a different idea you would say, "Now, just a minute. Now, just how does he add this up? There must be some deep significance back of this." No, it's just a matter of too much hair. I'm sorry, it's just there is no more significance in it than that. He doesn't like women because women wear long hair. He knows that long hair shouldn't be worn. When the wind hits it, it makes a motion. Get the idea?

The fellow says, "Yes, but I'm liable to hurt my leg."

Same fellow. Doesn't like Roman troops. Why not? Well, they have short hair. When the wind hits it there's no motion at all, don't you see?

"Oh, go on and stamp."

Well, what is the proper length of hair? Well, it's obviously somewhere between a crew cut and a pageboy. You're liable to come up with some coif of one kind or another and say, "Well, is that it?"

He says, "This is the funniest technique I ever heard."

"That's fine."

You say, "Cures gravity. Go on. Stamp some more."

Then he'd go tell his wife, "Listen, honey, this guy's got peculiar ideas. Get your hair cut just slightly above the lower lobe of the ear, you know? Just about there."

And he'd be stuck in the session, but the session was relatively painless. And he could substitute the session's rest point for the engram rest point. Couldn't he? Well, that is swapping rest points by substitution. Very simple mechanism.

And he says, "My God, you're gorgeous, dear." He's happy with her for the rest of his life, see?

Now, a preclear starts to fly into flinders in the middle of a Stop-C-S sequence, something like that. If you were to simply grab him and give him a hard shove and slam him against the wall and hold him there for a couple of minutes – I mean, bodily with your two hands, you know. You could give him a verbal holder: "Hold on, here," you would say, or something of the sort. "Stop it, now," something on that order.

This is a completely wild, wild thing because you say it couldn't possibly make that much difference. Well, we don't have to inquire into the deeper significance of it. A person finds life as livable as it matches his idea of an optimum randomity. What is an optimum motion? What is an optimum abundance?

This is not good auditing. But it is actually better than letting him fly to flinders. Got that? I mean it's actually a bit better. What have you done? You've given him a rest point in the middle of the session.

You take somebody who's been living in a palace all his life and set him down before a turkey dinner served in a middle-class home, and he'd wonder, "These poor people. How could they possibly get along?" because they were always starving to death. There wasn't enough food on the table.

Now, he wouldn't necessarily have come through this. He would have found a rest point. Of what kind? Out of the engram bank. So you give him one before he reaches for the engram bank. He merely gets nervous; you shove him up against the wall; you hold him there. You've given him a rest point, haven't you?

Conversely, you take some guy who's used to eating out of tin cans and show him the same dinner and he'd get sick at his stomach. He can't understand how people gorge themselves so. And he begins to be very upset about people gorging themselves.

Now, you could actually pin somebody there with a very simple mechanism. (I'm not telling you this is good auditing; I'm just giving you examples.) He stands here. We hold him against the wall, and then when we've got him pinned there real good, we shove his shoulder with this hand and then give him a bunch of motion, and then shove him some more, and then give him a bunch of motion. Got the idea?

Well, mainly people miss in understanding other people and begin to look for many more hidden things than this simple consideration: How much is too much? How much is too little? How little is too little? Well then, what's just right?

This is confusion in front of his face, see? That's a rest point. He'd come out of it. He'd tell everybody from there on out that you were a very forceful auditor. He'd be stuck right there, see. But maybe it was better to get him stuck there than in his tonsillectomy. Got the idea?

Well, if you could get this fellow to get his "just rights" on every consideration, and if life was modeled in that fashion to match his consideration perfectly, you would see a great relaxation. He'd really be relaxed.

This is not good auditing. It's merely a substitution of rest points, just to show you what a rest point is and what a confusion is.

I saw an example of this one time. There were a bunch of promoters. Real high-pressure, high-speed – oh, man, they were really promoters. They worked in oil stocks and things like that up in New York. Whee, you know? They didn't think they were doing a good day's work unless they'd taken some widow's last ten thousand before breakfast, you know? They were real fast, positive con men. They were playing cards. And they were playing cards at a rather stiff rate of speed, see? The place was absolutely blue-green with cigar smoke, you know. The chips were scattered all over the place. They had a radio turned on, and it was loud enough to make the people three floors above keep calling the police, who kept knocking on the door.

This is all based, however, on the idiotic fact that a thetan does not like confusions.

Now, these guys were all talking and the radio was going and they were playing cards and it was all totally disrelated, and a guy walked in. And he was just back from the Midwest where he had gone for his health. And he walked in and heaved a sigh of relief and he sat down to the table, sailing his hat into the corner, picked up a drink out of a dirty glass, grabbed a cigar, sat back, unbuttoned his shirt, you know, and he says, "Boy," he says, "It's good to be home to a restful place."

Now, let's get this real good, see? He doesn't like confusions. He considers something confusing, therefore he wants to get rid of it. So therefore, he will not confront a confusion; so therefore, no space will then exist between him and bank confusions. If he won't confront a confusion then he gets no space, because space is the viewpoint of dimension which puts him in the confusion. Have you got that?

That was home. That was calm. I could get the idea as far as I was concerned, you see, of a complete desert stretching out in all directions and not a sound on it anyplace, you know, and just nothing but rest. No pressure. That was home. That was the way it ought to feel.

Now, it isn't necessarily true that all Scientologists dislike confusions. Not true at all. Because we have run processes, one kind or another, and we've seen confusion in the bank and we have finally, most of us, said "So what?" We get a big engram suddenly swings into restimulation and causes the left hind leg to jerk or something of the sort for a couple of days, and we say, "Well, that's just that damned engram I was running, you know." Not impressed. And it fades on out.

Well, sometimes you talk to a preclear and he doesn't seem to think you're a good auditor. Well, this is just What does he consider the optimum amount of sympathy?

Why? Because we're to some degree confronting it. We understand it. We are able to communicate with it.

I have occasionally surprised the living daylights out of some preclear by giving him too much just on purpose. Make him wake up to the fact that all he was doing – he wasn't running at all – he was just sitting there begging for sympathy. Oh, I've done such things as get up and throw myself weepingly upon the couch, you know, and just sob and say, "My God, how it breaks me up for you to have been treated in this fashion. How could they have done it!" You know.

So therefore, we're not subject to the same reactions. But nevertheless, we still don't like confusions in magnitude that we call aberration.

The guy would look at me...

Now, I've talked to you about these other confusions, but I haven't talked to you about thought confusion; disorderly thought patterns. We don't like those. They're illogical. They're professorial. They're scientific. We don't like those disorderly confusions.

That's too much, so he questions it. But imagine my surprise one day for it to have been just enough for one preclear. Just exactly right. The person never had confidence in me before. From there on, boy, I was something. I knew people.

Somebody says, "Well, I'm very glad that you came over to the house. I'm very glad you came over to the house because yesterday I ate ice cream."

I've known people, their idea of the proper amount of sympathy was actually a curled lip of contempt. Only you never would have interpreted this as sympathy at all, but they did. That was enough minus randomity on the subject of sympathy, you see. That was enough minus sympathy – nonsympathetic.

We say, "Well, it's about time somebody called the little white wagon here," if this fellow insisted on this pattern.

You'll see troops exercising this. And it becomes immediately familiar to men when I say this. Some guy just gets smashed up in some fashion and the cracks that are made at him, he interprets as sympathy. And, actually, to some degree they're intended as sympathy.

Well, to a certain degree we are, then, hypercritical of a disorderly thought pattern. Well, see that a confusion of matter or a confusion of particles just moves upstairs one jump and it's a confusion of thought. Get the idea?

Now, this then opens up a new field, a new view to anyone that people could all run on the same rules actually, but at different speeds. People could all stem from the same component parts, from the same sources of aberration, the same mechanical components going into their makeup, with a different consideration as to what was enough.

Now, you can actually have somebody with a confused thought pattern. He can't get his thoughts aligned or in a logical sequence. Has practically nothing whatsoever to do with any material confusion, see. So this is a lighter one.

Now, you get the young Thor draining the horn of the giants, and that was enough to drink, you know. It wasn't enough to drink for the giants, though. They considered that was pretty bad "he thought." In other words, he had one idea of how much was enough drinking. They had another idea of how much was enough drinking.

Now, the individual is fixed into a bunch of fixed ideas by material confusions. You might say he doesn't have a time track. He has a consecutive series of aberrated rest points surrounded by untolerated confusions. And this sounds awfully logical to him, you see. "I'm glad you came over to see me. I ate ice cream all day yesterday."

Here we have the alcoholic. Now, let's really cut in on this one on a real tight curve here. We've got the alcoholic. The alcoholic once upon a time had an idea of how much was enough to drink. Somebody has disturbed that. They have forced it north or south, so he has a violent reaction to drink in certain quantities, don't you see?

You wait in vain for some explanation. You say, "Well, what's the matter? Have you got a stomachache? You want me to audit you?" Something of this sort.

Now, at one time, then, he had a tolerance for a certain quantity of liquor. But this, having been violated thoroughly, leaves him without a tolerance and with no consideration on the subject. In other words, he has been overwhelmed on his consideration of how much was enough to drink. He's overwhelmed.

"No, no, no. No," he said "I feel fine. What's that got to do with ice cream?"

How much is too little? Well, a man can have some appalling ideas on this subject of how much is enough to drink. I've been out with "Scandihoovian" sailors, you know. And they think a pint's a drink. You hand them a pint and they drain it, and say, "Thanks," walk on down the street without the faintest reel. That was enough to drink, for one drink.

And you said, "But you said ice cream."

Now, when we look it over, it doesn't explain on the basis of tissue absorption. How the medicos would love to explain it all on the basis of "Enzymes go around the gemzynes, and little bacrobics do this and that, and that manufactures the cross- paralytics," or whatever – you know, some nonsense – "It does something medically."

"Oh, yes, but that was yesterday."

No, it doesn't do anything medically unless you're tuned up to that wavelength, you might say.

Well, here is a whole new aspect. Here's a whole new aspect as far as you're concerned. You don't like this because it throws him out of communication. So he becomes out of communication to some degree as far as you're concerned, and because he's out of communication, then, you're not sure what you're confronting. And in view of the fact you're not sure what you're confronting you don't confront it and it tends to close terminals on you. You got it?

They throw these data away, by the way, rapidly. They don't look at these data. They throw them about, because they're too random; they can't be confronted. Obviously, opium is an opiate. It is an opiate because opiate is a derivative of the word opium. They would explain this to you carefully. Then we get technical on the subject and they say, "In it's effect it is soporific. It produces a lethargic reduction of consciousness, you see."

That which you do not confront snaps in on your physiognomy. This is because space is the viewpoint of dimension. One makes space. That is the hottest proof of that subject you ever heard of.

And you'd say, "Oh, you mean it knocks you out."

We never had any proof of this, by the way, until fairly recently. Space really is the viewpoint of dimension because when a man won't look, there's no space. And we get the phenomenon of problems closing in on people, and so on.

Well, he would be amazed. He would be amazed. Now, he's got it all in his pharmacopoeia that so many milligrumps of opium knock out somebody. That's what he's got. It says right there.

It's quite an interesting series of phenomena which occur here. We get the whole phenomena of valence. The whole phenomena of valence comes out of this: Those things at which we will not peek-sneak.

All right. He takes somebody and he gives them this many milligrumps. The fellow sits there, swallows them – nothing happens. Takes another couple of them, throws them in – nothing happens. Takes some more, throws them in, and he says, "Look, it'll happen all at once" – nothing happens.

One day we wake up and we say, "Well, I'm so glad you came over to see me because I ate ice cream all day yesterday."

This guy doesn't happen to have the consideration that opium is an opiate. He hasn't read the dictionary derivation. He hasn't been overwhelmed by the idea that it's a soporific. It doesn't overcome him. It is simply some pills.

Why? Well, we couldn't confront this.

If it's explained to him carefully how he has just consumed enough to kill him, and show him statistically – statistically demonstrate to him – that that much opium poured into a small dog would have turned him a bottlegreen purple, fellow's liable to say, "Well, I guess I'm wrong." Bloo! And out he'd go.

Well, there is a method of confronting it. There is a method of confronting it, actually and factually. There are two processes. One, which is "Mock up a confusion," and another process which talks wonders to a Scientologist, if he can get it run on him, is "Mock up aberrated people." Total auditing command.

This is an amazing reaction. You take somebody who is nonhypnotic and then explain to them that being nonhypnotic is a manifestation of being insane. People who are nonhypnotic are insane. Prove it to him conclusively. The next time you say "abracadabra" or something, he goes "Daaa." Get the idea?

You know, he'll see nothing for the first half hour of the session. Why?. He hasn't confronted them, he's made them well. Get the idea?

In other words, you have to actually overwhelm that basic consideration before you get a violent or non-normal reaction. Have you got it?

Now, when one cannot get a mock-up, it is merely that he has not confronted the basic image he is trying to approximate in his mock-up. And when he has not confronted this image, the mock-up is blank. So to say "He can't get mock-ups" is an incorrect statement. "He can't get confronts" is a correct one. You see that?

He's got the idea that so much is all right; so little is all right. Now, that has to be overwhelmed before he himself gets overwhelmed. Do you get the idea? You've got to really shove in his own considerations. But as you do shove his own considerations, his considerations narrow – and narrow and narrow and narrow and narrow – until it becomes very critical how much is too much and how much is too little. Got the idea? He gets critical about this.

There isn't a case in the world that can't get mock-ups. One does not exist. That I assure you.

You'll find the fellow measuring out arsenic with suspicion, you know. You'll find him taking a pair of gold-balance scales that'll measure a gnat's sneeze and being very careful about the arsenic content of a drink, or something like that. The fellow, in other words, narrows his tolerance to the extent that his tolerance itself is overwhelmed. Now, can you enlarge it after that basis?

But there are cases who have so negligently not confronted a great many things, that when you say, "Now, mock up a cow," and he says "Moo" – we would have an extreme case, wouldn't we? But he'd sure get no mock-up of a cow.

In other words, you've got to disturb a person's basic considerations on any given subject before you can overwhelm them with that subject.

Now, some people don't moo; they just get a blank out there. You know, and they get another blank. They get something black. They get another blank. They get shields, screens. A screen is just a symptom of "I won't look at – I'll put a screen there."

He considered that being able to read a book every week, being able to take a walk – that was an exciting life. Somebody has to come along and convince him it's a boring life before he begins to suffer from it. In other words, there's got to be an opposite and contrary opinion. That has to be shoved around. That has to be moved around. And when his ideas of tolerances are altered, then you get him into what we call an aberrated condition. Up to that time you can't consider it aberrated.

By the way, the liability of ever putting a screen between you and anything you won't look at is you never know when it leaves.

So aberration is a third-dynamic phenomenon. It is taken apart with a third-dynamic activity called auditing. It's not a first- dynamic phenomenon. Aberration never has been, never will be. When the individual faces too much or too little motion within his consideration and something bad happens to him as a result, then that bad thing that happened to him as a result is actually narrowly based on somebody having sold him the idea that his considerations were in error.

I remember this about a lion one day. Well, anyway... Four or five days later I said, "What the hell's that screen doing there? What's that screen doing there? I don't even know what's behind it. It says here 'Don't look.'" Picked up the screen, there wasn't anything behind it.

He had to be made wrong before he could be wrong with regard to his considerations. And the more he is made wrong, the more narrow his tolerance of any given speed, motion, action, thought, belief, custom or moral becomes.

Well, a totally black case has got total screens, none of which he must lift.

I get a very big kick out of some old fellow that comes along and, boy, he's moral. Wow! You know? Oh, man, is he moral! I mean, it just hurts, you know, to listen to this fellow. What a beating he must take from the daily paper. What a beating he would take from the Christian Science Monitor. And he's pretty moral. He's very strait-laced. He knows what's right and he knows what's wrong. And man, he's got it measured with a micrometer caliper. Hey, has he got a past! Mm, wow! Whew!

Now, you ask him to start mocking things up that he can't confront or won't confront or has used a screen on, and he gets a screen. Or he gets a blank. And you can ask him to go on for a long time and he won't get any mock-ups. But all of a sudden he gets a stray shoe or a hoof or a bit of tufted tail out here somewhere.

You start auditing this boy and you start increasing his tolerances on what is and what isn't moral, and he's liable to take a wild dive on you with regard to his reactions to any given question. You find out, well, he wasn't really bad off. He wasn't really bad off until he strangled his younger brother. And then it sort of settled in on him, as his mother explained to him that this was wrong... You got the idea?

The best auditing command, of course, is something of – take this – "Mock up as much as you can of a lion." Be diplomatic. Be real. Let the preclear obey your command by making the command obeyable.

Somebody, then, who was intolerant, or you might say has a very narrow tolerance in life – "People must all run at an exact speed, neither too fast nor too slow," you know. "Things must be done not too good or too bad but just uyu-vhuh. And things must be done in just exactly..." "The way you set the table is to put the knife there with it's handle touching the edge of the table (not in any), you know, with its blade pointing over toward the right. The spoon sets in with its handle exactly level with the bottom of the knife." This is the way you set a table, see.

All right. Now, if we're going to go in on processing Scientologists, you find something they can't mock up. You'll find there isn't one, I don't think, who can mock up (you know, I said plural) aberrated people. See? They'll mock up something maybe, see, get a blank, and so forth. They get zeros.

Somebody explains this to you. It's all right. A guy in terrifically good shape would simply practically toss the silverware down and it'd wind up in an aligned fashion. You got the idea? But this person goes over and moves it into this and explains how it must be that way and practically screams every time it is some other way: You can assume that there's been a lot of adjustment of opinion on the whole subject of eating. Got the idea? We must have had a big adjustment of opinion, because the tolerances are very poor. Got that?

Why do they get zeros? Well, they haven't looked at aberrated people. They've looked at potentially sane people. Got the difference?

So, the consideration itself, broadly then, at first, must be viewed as something that was pretty doggone wide. In other words, anything in driving between twenty and eighty could be considered as a nice, comfortable speed. After a while, you will find that it doesn't necessarily have to be fifteen. A person doesn't slow down that way. A person slows down to thirty-five and slows up to thirty-five. You got the idea?

It's quite amusing. The second that you're able to mock up a tremendous number of aberrated people, just mobs of them you know, and so on, you become in essence a very able auditor. Because you don't care whether you drive this guy stark staring mad, or operating serenity. Get the idea, though? You don't care which way you go. In other words, there's no pressure on you to do either way, and you will improve him for the better.

The eighty became thirty-five. The twenty became thirty-five. They become a fixed speed. Riding at that speed they say, "Oh well, that's a comfortable speed." You're driving. You're driving. You watch their toes. You go thirty-eight miles an hour. You see those feet start down there, hitting the imaginary brakes, you know. Broad four-pass highway, no traffic. You go thirty-eight and their foot goes up there to find the imaginary brake. "Well," you say, "well, I'm going too fast for them." Slow down to thirty-two. They get restless.

If you have to process him because you can't confront him as he is, you're going to get minimal results because you'll never be processing the preclear who's sitting in front of you. As a matter of fact, he gets kind of dim.

You'd say here was somebody that had really been mauled around and had really mauled around other people on the subject of cars – and you would be right. The narrowness of the tolerance is measured by the amount of violation of randomity. All speeds are bad but thirty-five. Got the idea? Thirty-two is too slow. Thirty-eight is too fast. Thirty-five is just exactly the right speed.

I remember when the first preclear disappeared in my auditing chair. I started to check up on this. He got thin. He got awfully thin. I couldn't quite see the chair pattern through him, but almost. And I said, "See here, what is this?" And because I didn't care whether he was crazy or what, I looked at him real hard and he got thick again.

Now, other people can go just as silly on an upper band, because it's just a matter of consideration. It doesn't necessarily settle in a mean at all. Somebody who at one time considered between twenty and eighty just fine, has been overwhelmed to the point where only 118 is a proper speed. It's a new consideration. But it's 118. You go 105 and they get nervous. And you say, "I'm going too fast." So you go ninety-five. They almost die!

But I've always remembered this peculiar phenomenon and I have seen other auditors experience similar phenomena. I have seen auditors have times when the preclear just sort of fogged out on them, you know? "Preclear looks foggy. Head looks foggy. You know? I wonder what is happening to that preclear?" Well, it isn't anything happening to the preclear. The auditor just isn't confronting something about this case. Get the idea?

I had a fire-engine driver one time: He was a very, very fine driver, but unfortunately fire engines are evidently supposed to travel at exactly sixty-two miles an hour around town. I don't know why, but it must be, because that's the only speed this guy could drive.

Well the remedy for it is a very simple remedy. "Mock up a confusion," of course, is the basic command. "Mock up aberrated people, just swaths of them" is, of course, quite another command.

Well, I had a car that did well at ninety. And it was a broad, straight, unbending, unfrequented highway. He drove sixty-two. So I said, "Well, he's being conservative." And we came to a country town which had narrow streets which turned like pretzels. It was full of wagons, carts, strange vehicles. We went through it at sixty-two.

Now, the mechanism of closure on a mechanical level is wantingness. You want somebody to talk or you want somebody to say something, or you want something. Wanting is simply the mechanical expression of the postulate "close distance." When you want something you want a distance closure. So that which you want you wind up not confronting.

Now, this is also expressed in terms of heat. Heat expresses itself this way, too. Originally a person has a very wide heat tolerance. Doesn't bother him, particularly, thirty degrees above. Wouldn't worry him too much with no jacket. It wouldn't worry him too much with a jacket on at 100. See? But, gradually, heat becomes associated with wrongness. Various low degrees and various high degrees become associated with wrongness. He associates these things so that he moves off any consideration of his own and only adopts some other consideration on the subject. Because he's misowning the consideration, it, of course, persists. He eventually decides, as most of the human race has decided, that about seventy or seventy-two is pretty good.

The child gets a toy – throws it away the next day. Why? He wanted it. It closed the distance. So he identified this with confrontingness. He said, "Well, if it's that close to me, I can't confront it. I'm not confronting it. Something is wrong with this. I must be afraid of it. It must not be what I want after all."

But America, oddly enough, has decided something new. And that's that seventy-eight is all right inside with a coat off, you know, but seventy outside is all right with a slight fur parka over your head. I'm fascinated. I see people going around all wound up and so forth outside. And I go into their homes you know and you wonder what the hell is this, Death Valley? It's hot! You know, and the thermometer is way up there and the place is smoking and so forth.

So we get those old-time 8008 postulates: "What you want, why you don't like," and so on.

Now, this could, then, become specialized. After it's being generalized that exactly seventy-three is the right temperature everywhere, then you could break this down and it'd become individuated again, and temperature could become: inside one temperature is correct, outside another temperature is correct. Well, that's kind of a silly thing, but you get an individuation of the generality and a further complexity thereof.

Well, this is a very simple thing to see and understand. But the entire pattern of aberration in a preclear's mind or in an organization's organization is totally a basis of a rest point surrounded by a confusion. And the more confusion there is, the more fixed the rest points become.

Well, what is this thing called randomity?

If you want to stop somebody on the street and practically have him freeze in his tracks, just walk up to somebody and start waving your hands in front of his face like this. And the guy will just go, freeze. It's quite interesting. It's an interesting phenomenon.

The optimum randomity of a person is what he thinks it is. But any fixed, superfixed randomity is apt to be the result of his own considerations having been overcome. And if motion produces a marked, violent effect upon him, depresses him or pushes him into some different state of mind that is quite marked and quite violent, then you must assume that his own opinions on the subject have been overwhelmed and that the level of wrongness of these nonoptimum motions is fantastic.

This is the basic explanatory phenomena back of all mechanics. This confrontingness, the confusion, the rest point, and so forth. Now, whether that's applied to a huge struggling organization like General Electric or a preclear, you're just applying it on a different dynamic.

Now, why a thetan couldn't tolerate -273 degrees centigrade or +1600 centigrade with equal calm is a mystery. But they get into a body and it varies ten degrees either way and they start to scream and call the waiter and leave the place and buy fur coats and... You know? It's crazy.

It works the same on each one of these dynamics. There is the same phenomena of disorderly thought, and below that level – with a thought solidified – a disorderly pattern of particles, which we call a confusion. And a thetan doesn't like the thought in a disorderly pattern and he doesn't like the particles in a disorderly pattern, and he doesn't confront either of them.

But you get a phenomenon of a person's own considerations being overwhelmed, and then you get what we call aberration and so forth.

In order to get him to confront them, it is only necessary to have him mock them up. He'll eventually find out there is some part of them that he can confront. Naturally his mock-ups for a long, long time are totally unreal.

Well, let's look at this in terms of merely a disorderly set of ideas. They considered this set of ideas all right. Too hot, too cold – didn't matter particularly; didn't worry them. Now we get a disorderly datum into this lineup, and it says that too cold is too cold, and too hot is too hot, that there is such a thing as too hot, that there is such a thing as too cold, there is such a thing as too fast, there is such a thing as too slow with regard to any given object.

The fellow who has a spook out there is simply proving – you know, a mock-up that he can't get rid of – he's just proving he can confront it by not confronting it ever. He sort of tells you, "Yes, I – I know I've got a – I know I've got a mock-up of my mother out there. It's right there." Only he never swivels around inside of his head and looks that way. When his face goes this way, he goes that way. Get the idea?

And they try to straighten that datum out because it is not particularly an optimum datum. But they may borrow it because it makes a game. And they begin to hold on to a set of ideas that they specialize in. And they will eventually find all ideas on the subject of heat and cold random or confused or disorderly except one: seventy-eight. See? And then seventy-eight – it has to be just exactly seventy-eight or they're miserable. Hotter, colder, they're miserable.

Now, somebody must have dreamed up the idea that there was something wrong in having a disorderly thought pattern. There must have been phenomena involved with this which made it intensely unpleasant in some fashion or another in order to get out of this, pain. And you wonder about the mystery of pain. Well, the mystery of pain is simply the mystery of confusion. It's how much confusion is there and how invisible is this confusion. That's about all there is to pain. It's an invisible confusion. Obviously it'd have to be invisible or he wouldn't get so close to it that he could feel it. It's quite amazing.

Well, all ideas on the subject of heat and cold are disorderly, or they came from disorderly sources and so are themselves disorderly. So therefore, it must obtain here that only one idea of temperature is correct. And of course, that's obviously nonsense.

If you were to look at any pattern of flesh that hurt, you would see that it was in a constant confusion all the time it was hurting. That the particles were running into the particles which were running into the particles which were running into the particles, and this bounced back and forth creates a sensation we know as pain. We can approximate it just by throwing random hot particles, random cold particles and random electrical particles together in the same package and touch somebody's arm with it and he'll be in agony at once. We can synthesize pain by making a synthetic situation of a confusion.

Well, as we look over this whole subject of randomity we discover then that all preclears are different, but they're only different in terms of their considerations of too fast, too slow, too disorderly, too orderly.

Of course, cold particles and hot particles – you don't expect one or the other to be with the other. See? Things that are hot are hot. Things that are cold are cold. That's orderly. But hot things that are cold things, that's kind of mixed up, see.

Thank you.

Now, hot things and cold things obviously aren't electrical things. But if you throw electrical things in there too, the confusion is sufficient – so actually, merely touching somebody on the arm with hot and cold and electrical particles at the same time won't make a mark, but he will swear that his arm has been drilled by a Mauser bullet or you've just sawed it off or something has happened, see? It's agony. Some day for a fee, why, you might teach a fraternity this.

[End of Lecture]

Where we have the phenomena, then, of disorderly thought or disorderly particles, we also get the phenomenon of fixed thought and fixed particles. You got it?

The phenomena of disorderly thought and disorderly particles: in other words, confusion in the field of thought, confusion in the field of mass. Where we have those two things, we have the thetan answering them with a fixed thought for one, or a fixed mass for the other one. And naturally, we'd expect to find mass confusion full of disorderly thoughts; we would then expect to find the fixed particle that was resisting all that confusion to be full of thought, too.

Well, sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. Sometimes you take apart a mass on a preclear, a ridge like that, there isn't a thought in it. See, it's simply a mocked-up mass there to resist that much moving mass and that much confusion. And sometime we take apart a thought pattern expecting to find a key thought, and we find a ridge or a mass. See?

And sometimes we find a huge area of particles all in motion one way or the other, and instead of any mass resisting them, why, there's a thought resisting them. See? In other words, we get the thought sometimes goes with the masses of particles. Sometimes a mass goes with the disorderly thought pattern. And sometimes they combine. It just happens the way it happens. It too is a randomness because it is the subject of randomness.

Now, the intolerance of disorderliness and the intolerance of confused masses, alike, cause aberration, alike cause pain.

You see, it isn't that pain proceeds from this and a thetan doesn't like pain. Don't draw the pattern that way. That's a crooked course, see. A thetan dislikes a confusion and when it gets too tight and too confused he feels his dislike. Get the idea? In other words, the confusion gets confuseder and confuseder and tighter and tighter and closer and closer and one fine day, why, he hurts. It hurts.

Now, you take a series of cells on the hand, let us say, and these cells are in a nice, orderly pattern. They are all well arranged; they are doing fine; the conduits, communication lines are all fixed up fine. And you jab them with a needle; you feel pain. Why do you feel pain? Well, you've interrupted – no more than this – you've simply interrupted the orderliness. You have caused some random particles at a very tight level and you've caused this to be a confusion then. And that confusion is minute and it is experienceable as pain.

Big organization experiences some confusion. What actually is its expression? It feels like it's being hurt. Now, we get used to reorganizing things around here. We get used to it. We get inured to it. Just like we can stand somatics, we can stand reorganization every few days. It's a healthy symptom. We know what's going on. We know we'll be able to get our work done as soon as the desk gets put down. And we try to keep other people from finding out where our desk is now because for days a great calm is liable to ensue before somebody catches up with the proper baskets. It's the only way you ever get a vacation in Scientology, is get your desk moved by a reorganizational plan.

But this isn't true in somebody like General Electric. They are in such a tight-packed, total confusion, knowing very little about organization, that if you disturb one piece of paper, pain is expressed in all directions. That's for true.

If, for instance, an invoice for repair parts on some unit were to be displaced in the communication lines, probably the least that would happen is that somebody would be threatened with starvation. In other words, he'd be fired. See? They run a "taut ship." They run such a taut ship, and everything is so close together, and it's so confused anyway, that the only way to get along in this taut ship is not to move anything.

The best thing to do is to sit there. Don't put pieces of paper in your baskets, because they're liable to get on lines and interfere with people. Shuffle them under your nose. You know? Next week start through the same pile.

Of course, you always run the chance that somebody may find out some directive that was issued three or four years ago that said that your particular post – Engineering Draftsman's Clerk, or something like this – that said that your post took care of where the coffee machine was to be located.

And then it's up to you to become a lawyer and prove that the thing was outdated by reorganizational plan 865, wherein it was clearly stated that... You'd have to get out from under, under your own steam. Nobody's going to help you get out from underneath anything in General Electric, let me assure you. They just help you drown.

Well, they don't get much done. What's phenomenal, what is utterly phenomenal, is that sets and things and stuff move off their assembly line, and advertisements appear in the papers, and stuff gets put into the hands of distributors. This is phenomenal – that people issue stocks and bonds someplace in this vast mass and finance things. You see? This is fantastic that this happens. That's because new blood keeps coming into the firm, and finds out eventually, and gets settled down – and they get new blood into the firm. So actually, there's as much action as it is expanding.

You look that over carefully, you'll understand the U.S. services.

In time of war it's quite common to look around – you know, not to confront the beachhead or something like that – look around and find out who's with you on this invasion, see. Who's with you on this trip? "Why, there's Joe over there. Hi, Joe! How you doing?. Haven't seen you since Guadalcanal. Ah, yeah. Fine, fine."

And you look over this way: "That's Pete. Hey Pete. Hey Pete, your ice-cream machine running? Oh, you haven't got it this time. Oh, you got a bigger one. Oh, fine, fine. Be over to see you right after we hit the beach, you know."

And after a while you say, "Now, wait a minute. You know? Pete, me, Pete. You know this is my fifteenth invasion? Hmm. I always see Joe and always see Pete. I'm always here. I'm seeing them, and then there's Oscar, and then those Aussie pilots that always show up." And you say, "What's the total manpower in this invasion? Let's see. It's probably – oh, let's see. Per ship, so on, there's probably about twenty-two thousand men. Hey now, wait a minute. It's the same twenty-two thousand. But I just read in the papers back home that there are now four million men in the navy. Where are they?"

Well, it takes that much turnover of new blood coming in from civil life... They know a war is going on and they want to get something done, and in those few weeks before they're detected, they ship enough to this group that's carrying on the invasions, you see (you see how this works), so that another invasion can happen. You see? And that's how a war goes on. It goes on in exact ratio that the navy gets bigger. You see? Because it always takes this much new blood.

You think I'm joking, don't you? It seems incomprehensible to you perhaps that this is the case, because you know that when you join the services you immediately go to the front. No, you go to the desk. They have a worse fate for you than the front.

You see how this could be? Here you have a big organization, and its communication lines are fixed up so that they have to move in a very exact pattern or it apparently causes pain to somebody. See? This goes down the line and it hurts somebody. It goes off- line or it moves too fast or it moves too slow. And there's nag, nag, nag, chop, chop, chop, you see, all the time. Evidently the organization is already in pain or there wouldn't be this much bad feeling going on.

Well, their lines are too tight, too badly planned and there's too much incipient confusion, and every stable datum there is simply curing some horrible malady that is immediately over the horizon and still exists. See? So we have this whole mass of maladies held in check by a few stable data. You got it?

This huge number of things that could go wrong – being held in check by a huge number of regulations that must be obeyed. And finally we get one regulation per one thing that can go wrong, you see? And you're up to the optimum, then, of having a stable datum for every particle. And the same time this happens, then the person considers every particle that exists capable of hurting him, capable of confusing him. So you have a one-particle confusion, and that's pretty hard to achieve. Real hard to achieve.

But here's this whole problem. Now, I want you to see this, that on a third dynamic you would have a regulation to hold in abeyance certain confusions. Do you understand that? In a preclear you would have a stable datum or a thought or an idea, "Horses sleep in beds," to resist another area of confusion. Do you see that?

Now, the confusions may or may not exist. They may or may not be real. But one never finds it out because he's never facing the confusion. The confusion might or might not be there.

And in an organization the size of General Motors or something the size of the United States Navy, nobody's looked for years and years and years. You walk in, you take a look, you don't see anything there. They say, "What's this silly regulation about 'all employees who have coffee at the coffee break must file past the supervisor's desk which is now in building fourteen.' That makes a coffee break twenty minutes of walking past the supervisor's desk and one minute getting some coffee. What is this all about?"

"Well, that's a regulation," they tell you, because that's their stable datum. A regulation is a regulation.

Well, no, it's holding in abeyance some confusion. But when did the confusion generate? Well, it generated, actually, in 1914 when there were only five employees, and the supervisor's office and room and desk were all there, right by the coffee pot. And he wanted to make sure everybody came back to work. There were only five guys so he could check them off – you know, one, two, three, four, five. They're back to their posts, see.

But now there's two thousand in the same room and they have to go over to another building to file by. You'd say, "Gee, this looks silly. What's this all about? What would happen if they didn't file by this desk?"

Don't ever ask that question. It gives everybody pain. You see why? Something painful is liable to occur. But what?

And they won't be able to tell you what. And it becomes one of these fascinating studies in resisting things that aren't present. And you, walking in from the outside, look at all the not-presentness of the situation. You see? You see everything is running along. You see the willingness of the workers to work. You see the willingness of people to sit down at their desks and shuffle the papers, and the willingness of guys to watch the assembly lines roll. And you occasionally hear them after hours, and they've got some ideas they'd like to put into effect, but they sure better not.

And you say, "Why not?"

And they look at you like "You stupid fool. Why not, he says. Ha- ha."

Why? Well, you can't see the confusions that are not there. So if you're ever going to psychoanalyze an organization – which would be removing all of its stable data – remember that you have to give them more stable data, not less, in order to have them even listen to you removing any confusions.

Now, that works for a preclear, works for an organization – work for any dynamic.

You've got to put more stable data there than you take away or they won't let you remove any confusions. In the final analysis, however, you're trying to make people face patterns of confused matter or patterns of confused thought. And if you can get them simply to confront these things, then space occur between themselves and those things. And they're no longer upset, in pain or aberrated.

Thank you.